The Newbie and Short Questions thread

[skullmilitia]

I meant just in general.

So is there any real reason why Robotech is so disliked, I mean I have both The Macross Saga (Robotech) and SDFM.

I see the obvious differences in story structure, but considering we have SDFM to DYRL, and Frontier TV / Frontier movies.

Whats truly wrong with RT?

* I mean Robotech as not including anything past the first war series.

[Bolt]

Core macross fans mostly dislike Robotec for many reasons. But it's what brought me to macross in the 80's.

And the first Robotec war series is a decent interpretation from SDFM.

But also your examples are of all Japanese variations.. Robotec is an American variant which is a rather different comparison.

In essence , there is nothing wrong with RT.

IMO :-)

This should be moved to the Robotec thread, the one that everyone knows it's ok that it's not macross & the hatrers can chill:)

[Mr March]

So is there any real reason why Robotech is so disliked, I mean I have both The Macross Saga (Robotech) and SDFM.

I see the obvious differences in story structure, but considering we have SDFM to DYRL, and Frontier TV / Frontier movies.

Whats truly wrong with RT?

* I mean Robotech as not including anything past the first war series.

Well, since you asked

*speaking only about the show and not all the other IP/legal reasons to dislike HG (and by extension, Robotech itself)*

While I'm sure everyone involved with Robotech had their reasons for doing what they did to the original anime in the mid-1980s, examining the first Robotech series post-release (meaning 15 years ago, when I last revisited it) I simply found the show to be a poorly edited, poorly localized, poorly dubbed and strangely sterilized version of the original SDF Macross series. Given that the age of the internet has made the original SDF Macross series (and all the official Macross merchandise) so easily available, I see no reason for watching Robotech, other than nostalgia. Personally, I found my nostalgia made a very smooth transition into the original SDF Macross series. Being fully immersed in the original SDF Macross series also makes the continuity, history and world building of the broader Macross franchise much more coherent and enjoyable when viewing all the many sequels.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Mr March

[Andras]

I have a couple questions after looking at videos of transforming models on YT:

1) Can the arm lasers on the VF-22 fire to the rear in Fighter mode? to the front?

2) Does the VF-25 Tornado pack have 4 micromissile launchers per wing? 3 on top and one on the bottom? There is a elongated hexagon on the bottom just like the three on the top.

3) Are the big elongated hexagons on top of the Tornado's mid-wing pods more (medium range?) missile launchers?

Thanks

[Seto Kaiba]

I have a couple questions after looking at videos of transforming models on YT:

1) Can the arm lasers on the VF-22 fire to the rear in Fighter mode? to the front?

2) Does the VF-25 Tornado pack have 4 micromissile launchers per wing? 3 on top and one on the bottom? There is a elongated hexagon on the bottom just like the three on the top.

3) Are the big elongated hexagons on top of the Tornado's mid-wing pods more (medium range?) missile launchers?

Thanks

1. Yes to both, according to the existing information for the YF-21/VF-22.

2. I believe so, yes. I'll admit to being a little behind on Frontier-related publications lately, but the sources I have do not specifically describe the number of micro-missile launchers, and only state that micro-missile launchers are present.

3. As far as I am aware, no.

[Andras]

Thanks for the reply.

I did a search for the VF-22s alternate BP-14 gunpod and found a discussion in an archived newbie thread about it and the 'cartridgeless' GV-17L.

To take that description at face value, is it possible the gunpods are railguns? The ammo fired by a railgun is not a cartridge, and it would help explain why it does not have a 'GU' designation.

[azrael]

...

To take that description at face value, is it possible the gunpods are railguns? The ammo fired by a railgun is not a cartridge, and it would help explain why it does not have a 'GU' designation.

There is such a thing as a cartridge-less gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G11

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerasimenko_VAG-73

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseless_ammunition

[Andras]

I read that discussion also. Those firearms are caseless, not cartridgeless. The term cartridge refers to the complete round of ammunition, and a complete caseless round is also referred to as a cartridge.

from wiki:

A cartridge (also called a round or a shell) is a type of ammunition packaging a bullet, a propellant substance (usually either smokeless powder or black powder) and a primer within a metallic, paper, or plastic case that is precisely made to fit within the firing chamber of a firearm.^[1] The primer is a small charge of an impact-sensitive or electric-sensitive chemical mixture that can be located at the center of the case head (centerfire ammunition), inside a rim (rimfire ammunition), or in a projection such as in a pinfire or teat-fire cartridge. Military and commercial producers also make caseless ammunition. A cartridge without a bullet is called a blank. One that is completely inert (contains no active primer and no propellant) is called a dummy.

Modern caseless ammunition consists of a solid mass of propellant, originally nitrocellulose, cast into shape to form the body of the cartridge, with cavities to accept the bullet and a primer, preferably combustible, which are glued into place. The completed cartridge might also contain a booster charge of powdered propellant, to help ignite the body and provide initial thrust to the bullet.^[1]

Many caseless cartridges are also telescoped, with the bulk of the bullet held within the body of the cartridge, to cut down on cartridge length. A shorter cartridge cuts down on the distance the firearm's action must reciprocate to load a new round, which allows for higher cyclic rates and greater probability of multiple hits on a target at long range.

While making the assumption that they meant caseless is logical, I wanted to discuss what if it actually is 'cartridgeless'

A railgun or coilgun fires projectiles, but doesn't use cartridges.

[azrael]

The whole "GU"-naming convention means little since those are company designations. We've seen "GPU" on the VF-0, "Gsh" on the SV-51, "MC" on the VF-17/171, or even "ESA" on the VF-25's wing root guns.

Would they be considered a rail gun? Probably not. Normally, they would make mention of that fact in the specs if was. But we haven't seen anything to that effect.

A beam gun could also be considered "cartridgeless".

[Mr March]

Some food for thought...the muzzle velocity of the early gun pods would not suggest rail gun technology. The VF-0 Phoenix GPU-9 gun pod was described with a muzzle velocity of 1,100 meters per second, a higher end velocity to be sure but within the bounds of current ballistic technology (or 1982 technology, as it were). The original Destroids definitely make use of full or partial rail gun technology, as their muzzle velocities are described directly as rail guns or high speed cannons firing well beyond anything current ballistics can achieve. The MBR-04-Mk X Destroid Defender has an officially published muzzle velocity of 3,300 (m/s), which I believe that is double the best achievable today. Once technology progresses into the 2040 era, the muzzle velocity of the YF-19/VF-19A Excalibur GU-15 gun pod is described as 4,000 m/s, another figure far beyond the limit of chemical propellants. By 2059, the VF-25G Messiah is using the SSL-9B Dragunov Anti-Armor Sniper Rifle at a muzzle velocity of 6,200 m/s (jumping to 7,490 m/s in space), but that gun is also described as a rail gun.

All this doesn't conclusively prove gun pods ARE rail guns of course (the gun pods could employ some other technology for high speed ballistics), but since the Macross universe has always employed high speed guns and rail cannons, it's a fair assumption.

[sketchley]

Those firearms are caseless, not cartridgeless.

In Japanese, the two terms are interchangeable.

[Seto Kaiba]

[...]

By 2059, the VF-25G Messiah is using the SSL-9B Dragunov Anti-Armor Sniper Rifle at a muzzle velocity of 6,200 m/s (jumping to 7,490 m/s in space), but that gun is also described as a rail gun.

All this doesn't conclusively prove gun pods ARE rail guns of course (the gun pods could employ some other technology for high speed ballistics), but since the Macross universe has always employed high speed guns and rail cannons, it's a fair assumption.

Well, to be fair, the SSL-9B Dragunov 55mm Anti-Armor Sniper Rifle is not a true railgun. The way it's described, it's actually a synthesis of railgun and (OTM-enhanced) conventional chemical cartridge technology. The same is probably true for Macross R's Queadluun-Alma "rail rifle" as well. IINM, the Macross II VFs are the only ones lugging pure applications of railgun technology as a gun pod.

A few times, I've mulled over the "cartridge-less" description of the GV-17L and thought "Maybe the bullet's propelled by some other, non-electromagnetic means". The idea I kept coming back to there was that it might be propelling bullets using a high-intensity laser like the needle guns from WH40K...

EDIT: Oh, and I did find that thing you asked me to look for.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Seto Kaiba

[Mr March]

Well, to be fair, the SSL-9B Dragunov 55mm Anti-Armor Sniper Rifle is not a true railgun...

The workings of OverTechnology ballistics in Macross is so undefined that I'd be hesitant to conclude whatever makes the gun pods work as they do. The gun pods may be using exotic OT-enhanced chemicals to achieve performance but then again they may not be using chemical propellants at all. Since SDF Macross was first released, we have read about weapons with rail gun performance being described vaguely as high-speed cannons or other terminology. But what exactly are these weapons and how are they firing as fast as rail guns without being rail guns is never stated. All we know for certain is the weapons of Macross are OverTechnology.

There are several other weapons besides the gun pods that achieve enhanced muzzle velocites but again are described only vaguely, like the GPB-1S Armored Valkyrie GA-100 Crusher high-speed armor-penetrating projectiles and there is also the VF-11C Thunderbolt APS-11 Protect Armor using the GU-XS-06 long-range high-piercing-round gun pod. I've not read anything from the Chroncile that expands the definition of what these guns are or do, but it's clear they are advanced OT.

The weapons of Macross are such a curious case because on the one hand there isn't much sense in ignoring rail gun technology (or hybrid rail/something else) as one of the more plausible explanations for gun pod performance given that it's an established technology used throughout the Macross universe for both ships and mecha. Yet taking the other side, if rail guns are established technology then why not simply describe gun pods and high-speed cannons as rail guns/hybrids rather than defining them as gun pods or high-speed cannons? Arguments for and against

PS. Thanks, but I think I may have forgotten what I asked you for

[Sdf Prime]

I have a question. I have the Macross 30 novel and wondered how the triangle ends. Does Leon end up with Aisha or Mina? Simce I cant read japanese, does the novel pretty much follow the game story?

Thanks

[Andras]

In Japanese, the two terms are interchangeable.

Well so much for that idea

Thanks

[Seto Kaiba]

The workings of OverTechnology ballistics in Macross is so undefined that I'd be hesitant to conclude whatever makes the gun pods work as they do. The gun pods may be using exotic OT-enhanced chemicals to achieve performance but then again they may not be using chemical propellants at all. [...]

Using the available evidence, that the gun pods are relying upon OTM-enhanced chemical propellants seems like a slam dunk. After all, we have an explicit reference to chemical propellant as the primary motive force behind the SSL-9B's 55mm AP rounds, and if the regular gun pods weren't using chemical propellants, why would so many of them be ejecting large quantities of shell casings? They might not be going into huge amounts of detail, but we've got enough to call a spade a spade...

[sketchley]

The 5 posts by bruiciadiofob preceding this one are spam (for those that can't figure it out from the links in them, its talking about dress shirts and A and B-grade brand goods).

Edited August 3, 2013 by sketchley

[Twoducks]

Spambot sealed.

[Mr March]

Using the available evidence, that the gun pods are relying upon OTM-enhanced chemical propellants seems like a slam dunk. After all, we have an explicit reference to chemical propellant as the primary motive force behind the SSL-9B's 55mm AP rounds, and if the regular gun pods weren't using chemical propellants, why would so many of them be ejecting large quantities of shell casings? They might not be going into huge amounts of detail, but we've got enough to call a spade a spade...

Ah, you're right. I had completely forgotten that the SSL-9B mentions chemical reactions. Now if only we knew what chemicals they used to propel slugs at 3,300 m/s we'd be set

That kinda makes me wonder, if some exotic OT-chemicals can propel munitions to such incredible velocities that can match rail gun speeds, what then is the advantage of having rail guns? I mean, we know the SSL-9B Rifle is a combo chemical+rail gun (which when combined can achieve faster firing than either one technology alone?). But then what would be the functional difference from a chemical gun pod vs. a rail gun if either can achieve the same muzzle velocity? Weirdness.

[sketchley]

The VFMF books have implied that a part of OTM is refining the tolerances in manufacturing. So, some of those gains in bullet velocity may be attributable to more efficient use of the gasses that propel the bullet.

[VF-15 Banshee]

I've meant to ask this a long while back but why is there a scene in False Songstress of Klan Klan in school with Alto, Michel and Luca? Isn't she 19? Is it a cover? I f so, why? What's the point? (beyond the obvious, of course)

Also, I've been looking at pictures of the Macross Quarter and... I'm not sure there's room in the carrier segment for 60-80 Valks and others? Maybe I'm looking at it wrong, or is this another case of starship interiors not matching with exteriors?

[Mr March]

Yeah, the Carrier ARMD-L of the Macross Quarter does seem a little small for that many craft. The Carrier is only 254 meters long for 80 craft. By comparison, a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier is 330 meters long and holds almost the same.

Though I suppose we can take into account that the ARMD-L is carrying "variable fighters", all of which have variable geometry wings and capable of transformation, so storage of such units is going to be infinitely easier than fixed-wing, non-variable aircraft.

[anime52k8]

Yeah, the Carrier ARMD-L of the Macross Quarter does seem a little small for that many craft. The Carrier is only 254 meters long for 80 craft. By comparison, a Nimitz Class Aircraft Carrier is 330 meters long and holds almost the same.

Though I suppose we can take into account that the ARMD-L is carrying "variable fighters", all of which have variable geometry wings and capable of transformation, so storage of such units is going to be infinitely easier than fixed-wing, non-variable aircraft.

Carrier aircraft have folding wings too. I think the biggest difference is that a real world carrier devotes a lot of it's internal volume to things like engine rooms; living space; food and water storage; and the mechanical systems related to catapults and elevators, etc. All this stuff is either located on other parts of the ship or significantly smaller do to advanced technology, freeing up more space in the ARMD-L itself for storing and maintaining aircraft.

[David Hingtgen]

Based on M7, valks commonly seem to be stored standing up in battroid mode----that can save a lot of space. (yes, we saw them in fighter mode too on the hangar deck, but just like a real carrier---some planes are being 'stored' and some are 'prepped' at any given moment---rarely is the entire wing at the same status, there isn't really room)

[frothymug]

I've meant to ask this a long while back but why is there a scene in False Songstress of Klan Klan in school with Alto, Michel and Luca? Isn't she 19? Is it a cover? I f so, why? What's the point? (beyond the obvious, of course)

I'm sure this is just another creative liberty change made specifically for the movie. As many relationships and situations have been altered, this may be another instance. Michael and Klan are inferred to already be "involved" with each other, and they may have put Klan into Mihoshi as a soon-to-be-graduating senior. Luca does refer to her as "senpai". If this is the case, she'd have to be no older than 18 for the movie continuity. There's no time in the movie to weave together the relationships of the characters, so this was probably the easiest solution to the problem.

In the series, she has already long since graduated and is taking classes in college.

[Andras]

Is there anything under the moving(?) panel on the outside of the Vf-3000 legs? Verniers or missiles?

It looks like the outer surface opens up slightly and exposes some things underneath in B mode.

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossga/vf-3000/vf-3000-battroid-schematics.gif

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossga/vf-3000/vf-3000-fighter-multipleviews.gif

http://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossga/vf-3000/vf-3000-battroid-rear.gif

Edited August 8, 2013 by Andras

[sketchley]

Is there anything under the moving(?) panel on the outside of the Vf-3000 legs? Verniers or missiles?

Nothing has been elaborated in any texts about it that I've read.

It's probably best to consider that moving panel as nothing more than something that provides better aerodynamics in Fighter form - as it slides forward and covers up the outer side of the knee joints in that form. Not sure if it improves stealthiness drastically, but there's probably an improvement there, too.

[Mr March]

Carrier aircraft have folding wings too. I think the biggest difference is that a real world carrier devotes a lot of it's internal volume to things like engine rooms; living space; food and water storage; and the mechanical systems related to catapults and elevators, etc. All this stuff is either located on other parts of the ship or significantly smaller due to advanced technology, freeing up more space in the ARMD-L itself for storing and maintaining aircraft.

That's a very interesting way of looking at it. It's possible the small size of OT would make more room available, but I'm not sure how much space could be saved and if the space savings of the average variable fighter are scalable to large ships. There was plenty of massive machinery inside the SDF-1 Macross despite there being room for a city in the legs, but that ship is 3 times the size of an aircraft carrier.

Looking at it critically, doesn't the average variable fighter have a lot more support hardware/munitions/equipment than a modern fighter? FAST Packs/Super Packs (with atmosphere/space variants), Armored hardware, gun pods, etc. Wouldn't these extended operational capabilities of the average variable fighter mean the VFs consume more space than the average jet fighter?

[VF-15 Banshee]

I would imagine so.

I was also looking at it more from an internal volume perspective. The Quarter's ARMD-L just doesn't seem to have the internal space for 3 Q-Rhea's, a Konig-Monster, 3 or more Ghosts and a couple dozen Valks and Destroids. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong...

I was also watching Itsuwari no Utahime and paying attention to the music this time and I noticed a few songs near the end that I'm not familiar with. There were two that Sheryl sang, one right after Sagittarius and then another and the end credits song as well. Never mind, I just answered the music question.

Edited August 9, 2013 by VF-15 Banshee

[sketchley]

If memory serves, the ARMD-L has a two-level hangar deck arrangement, and a maximum of 80 craft.

I think a better question to ask is what is a standard load? 50 to 80% of that maximum? And of those, how many are always prepped, how many are in maintenance/ready to be prepped, and how many are stowed away?

Edited August 10, 2013 by sketchley

[Andras]

Are PPBs on VFs ever used in Fighter mode or just in B mode?

[azrael]

Are PPBs on VFs ever used in Fighter mode or just in B mode?

On most VFs with a PPB system, usage is limited to Battroid mode due to power consumption. However, a VF-25 with Armored pack can use PPBs in fighter mode due to the presence of a energy capacitor in the Armored pack. A VF-27 can use PPB in fighter mode thanks to the 4 engines it possesses.

[anime52k8]

Looking at it critically, doesn't the average variable fighter have a lot more support hardware/munitions/equipment than a modern fighter? FAST Packs/Super Packs (with atmosphere/space variants), Armored hardware, gun pods, etc. Wouldn't these extended operational capabilities of the average variable fighter mean the VFs consume more space than the average jet fighter?

That's true, but my point was more that since the ARMD-L is presumably not an independent ship and simply just a detachable module of the Macross quarter, Things that take up a lot of space on a real carrier may not even be present at all. For instance, a real carrier has to have living space for a crew of over 3000 (crew quarters; dining, recreation and medical facilities; etc.). We don't know the crew complement of the Macross quarter but there's a lot of ship outside of the ARMD-L where that stuff could be located. Further more, the nuclear reactors and steam turbines of on a nimitz class carrier take up as much space as the hangers where the aircraft are stored. Does the quarter have it's own generators or propulsion system at all? if it does, how much space do they actually take up?

[David Hingtgen]

Is there anything under the moving(?) panel on the outside of the Vf-3000 legs? Verniers or missiles?

I honestly think it's nothing more than basic structure to cover the gap that the fin folds into. Otherwise there'd basically just be a 'hole' in battroid mode where the fin used to be. Look at a VF-25 toy, with the fin folded up---there's a slot in the cover where the fin normally pokes though. Due to how a VF-3000 opens the panel to retract its vental fin---there'd be a pretty big gap all around the edge of that panel.

The VF-11 retracts its tailfins in a such a way as to "fill in" the slot in both modes. But the VF-3000 seems to just open the panel, swing the fin 180 degrees, then try to cover up the rest of the gap with "tech greebles".

[anime52k8]

Here's one:

Has an explanation been given as to why the VF-25F and VF-25S have uniquely colored feet?